Posted on 09/05/2015 9:06:21 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
the SC can not write law so it can not expand the definition. All it can do is rule the current definition null and void. Which is did, it ruled the man/woman definition unconstitutional. There is no definition until the only branch of government authorize to write law, the legislature, writes a new definition.
My daughter was married in Germany and not issued a US license from our state. Why is it legal? Because it was in the presence of an authorized person or society.
So, the requirement of a state issued marriage license is fungible.
That is one reason I wonder if the Amish apply for state marriage licenses. I don’t really know.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(c)Marriage is prohibited and void when not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
That provision seems to me to have the potential to provide exceptions.
“All government marriage licenses are null and void, nunc pro tunc.”
Can you explain that? I googled nunc pro tunc but it didn’t help.
The Supreme Court made a “ruling” which ONLY applied to the litigants in the case before them. It did NOT strike down any state laws not involved in the case they made their ruling on. All present state laws are still in effect as is and are 100% legal until ruled on by the court individually.
Of course, since marriage is not listed anywhere in the Constitution, the federal government has no power to legislate on it and the Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to rule on it’s constitutionality. This is a State issue. Period.
The court did not re-write the statute. They have no legislative power. (THAT POINT IS CRUCIAL)
All they did was to declare that any definition of marriage which did not include homosexual couples is void.
A void law is not a changed law. It no longer exists.
Hence unless and until the Kentucky Legislature passes a new law defining marriage in accordance with the unconstitutional opinion of Justice Kennedy (BASTARD), then in effect there is no working definition of Marriage in the Kentucky Family Law Code.
Hence there is no such thing as "Marriage" in Kentucky.
Kentucky just passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage by 75%. So it is unlikely they will ever get the votes to follow Justice Kennedy bastardization of the Constitution.
Clerks like Kim Davis are required to follow the LETTER OF THE LAW. Right now the LETTER OF THE LAW regarding the definition of marriage no longer exists.
Simply put, the only way to reinstate the institution of marriage is either to ignore the SCOTUS opinion and tell them to go to hell, or change the law redefining marriage.
This is first year law school stuff. Whenever a statute is passed, the first part of a Statute will define all the terms of the law so that there is certainty as to what the terms mean in a legal context. Section 402.005 is the section that defines "Marriage". If that section is removed, then any references to "marriage" in the rest of the statute cannot be defined and hence the whole statute is void. The court has no power to change the terms or the words of a statute. All they can do is render an opinion on whether or not an existing statute is constitutional (and even that is a usurped and illegitimate power for the most part - See Amendment 10).
Does that help?
The authorized persons are enumerated by Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.050(1)(b)
When President Cruz takes office maybe he should just issue an executive order voiding the decision in Obergefell. Either that or maybe congress could pass a law voiding it. Tell the Supreme Court to go to hell (which is where at least 5 of them are going to end up soon).
“Unless and until the Legislature passes a new definition of Marriage, then nobody in Kentucky can legally get married.”
...and no one should be in jail because of that.
Are the homosexuals applying for licenses in Rowan County, Kentucky domiciled in Kentucky, or are they visiting? Are some of them from Ohio?
That section includes ministers in sections (a) and (c). They can be licensed to solemnize marriages. We are not judges, justices of the peace. If I look through my files, I probably still have a license to solemnize in Kentucky that I gained while stationed there years ago with the Army, once at Ft Campbell, and once at Ft Knox.
I see wiggle room in .020(1)(c) in the word ‘contracted’.
We know who can ‘solemnize’. We know who can issue licenses. But I don’t recall seeing the word ‘contracted’ anyplace until this point.
What does that mean?
How can one know them: they lie...
The left likes to slip things in through the backdoor.
Great post.
****So, you are in effect saying that Christians need not apply for any type of Government job then?****
No. If your only disagreement with the Supreme Court decision is that you will be breaking the law by issuing Marriage licenses, once that goes away by all of the states re-writing their laws there will be no recourse for the Christan who objects for conscientious reasons. This will in effect create a religious test that must be passed for County Clerks and others like the judge who now refuses to perform same-sex marriages
| CHAPTER 232 NUDIST SOCIETIES CHAPTER 273 RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETIES -- NONSTOCK, NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS CHAPTER 304 INSURANCE CODE Subtitle 29. Fraternal Benefit Societies |
Let’s look at the entire section
402.050 Who may solemnize marriage — Persons present.
(1) Marriage shall be solemnized only by:
(a) Ministers of the gospel or priests of any denomination in regular communion with any religious society;
(b) Justices and judges of the Court of Justice, retired justices and judges of the Court of Justice except those removed for cause or convicted of a felony, county judges/executive, and such justices of the peace and fiscal court commissioners as the Governor or the county judge/executive authorizes; or
(c) A religious society that has no officiating minister or priest and whose usage is to solemnize marriage at the usual place of worship and by consent given in the presence of the society, if either party belongs to the society.
SCOTUS IS NOT GOD OR KING
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.